SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 18686/13 Nicolae DANILIUC against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26 April 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda, President, Jovan Ilievski, Diana Sârcu, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 18686/13) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 27 February 2013 by a Moldovan national, Mr Nicolae Daniliuc, who was born in 1958 and lives in Chișinău (“the applicant”);

the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agents at the time, Mr L. Apostol, Mr M. Gurin and Ms R. Revencu;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant initiated proceedings against the Ministry of Finance under the provisions of Law No. 87 to claim compensation for excessive length of civil proceedings in which he had previously been involved. The courts found that the total length of the impugned proceedings was of 7 years and 10 months for three levels of jurisdiction. They also found that the applicant had requested and obtained at least three adjournments of the proceedings totalling some twenty-five months. At least five hearings were rescheduled due to his absence creating delays of some eight months. Nevertheless, the courts considered that the total length of the proceedings was excessive and awarded the applicant compensation of some 321 Euro (EUR).

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

In view of similar complaints on the delay in the enforcement of final judgments, in 2015 the Court decided to join this application with sixty others (see Ialtexgal Aurica S.A. and others v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.) , nos. 16000/10 and 60 other applications, § 10, 1 September 2015). The Court now considers that it is necessary to disjoin this application from the other sixty and to examine it separately.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that, in view of the insufficient amount of compensation awarded to him, he continued to be a victim of the excessive length of proceedings. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the domestic remedy against excessive length of proceedings was not effective.

The Government disagreed and argued that the complaints were manifestly ill-founded.

The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law (see, among others, Cristea v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 35098/12, § 25, 12 February 2019).

The Court notes that the domestic courts acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. As regards the redress afforded to the applicant, the Court cannot but observe that the applicant was responsible for a significant part of the total duration of the proceedings. Therefore, the Court considers that the amount awarded to him by the domestic courts was not unreasonably low in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the Court’s case-law in such cases. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

In view of the findings above, the Court finds that the complaint under Article 13 is unsubstantiated since domestic law provides for a procedure aimed at offering a remedy for the breaches alleged by the applicant. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this complaint is also manifestly ill ‑ founded and therefore inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Disjoins the application from the others to which it was joined ;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 May 2022.

Hasan Bakırcı Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar President